Of the Neanderthals

[LanceCohen]

Paleontology is obviously handicapped to only morphology to make species classification. And we know that dogs, from St Bernands to Chihuahua, and even coyotes and wolves, can interbreed and are all of one species. So Neanderthals, from some little but obvious skeletal differences - despite a great degree of similarity - have been classified as a different species, apart from homo sapiens.

But there have been recent DNA evidence that Neanderthals and Homo Sapiens interbred, and thus of the same species.

In other words we have to be always skeptical when some so-called scientist tell us, from some bone or partial skeleton, that some extinct constructed or imagined dinosaur is this species and that another; and we can be totally dismissive if this so-called scientist even attempt to say that one evolve from the other. (How would you feel if someone tells you the St Bernand evolve from the Chihuahua?)

In fact, the only conclusion that is true and we must accept is that we can never know; and that telling apart extinct species is an entirely unknowable thing, if the only evidence are fossils and bones.

So who or what are the Neanderthals?

A creationist-inspired hypothesis is that these are the antediluvian descendants of the sons Adam, other than Noah and his sons, all destroyed during the Flood.

And then it is not surprising that present day humans carry some of the Neanderthals genes, for Noah and his son's wives were descendants from the other sons of Adam too. The bible didnt tell us anything about these wives and so we cannot name the father the Neanderthals. Perhaps one day science may establish that H. Sapiens and Neanderthals share a common mother.

And also this hypothesis predicts that there are other "species" of human beings yet to be unearthed somewhere someday on this earth, and if their DNA can be extracted, will also be found in modern day humans.

 

[sfs]

Paleontology is obviously handicapped to only morphology to make species classification. And we know that dogs, from St Bernands to Chihuahua, and even coyotes and wolves, can interbreed and are all of one species. So Neanderthals, from some little but obvious skeletal differences - despite a great degree of similarity - have been classified as a different species, apart from homo sapiens.

Before the genetic evidence, they were classified as either a separate species or as a subspecies, with probably most scientists preferring the latter. No one pretended that there was any conclusive reason to prefer one classification or the other.

But there have been recent DNA evidence that Neanderthals and Homo Sapiens interbred, and thus of the same species.

No, that doesn't follow. Different species can interbreed. The genetic evidence strengthens the case for calling them a subspecies, but they're still sitting right on the fuzzy boundary of being a species -- the kind of boundary that evolution expects, but creationism denies.

In other words we have to be always skeptical when some so-called scientist tell us, from some bone or partial skeleton, that some extinct constructed or imagined dinosaur is this species and that another;

Skepticism is always a good idea. Automatic rejection of scientific claims because they disagree with your theology is not.

and we can be totally dismissive if this so-called scientist even attempt to say that one evolve from the other. (How would you feel if someone tells you the St Bernand evolve from the Chihuahua?)

I don't follow the logic. Do you dismiss scientific claims that both St. Bernards and chihuahuas evolved from wolves? What about the genetic evidence that humans are, in part, descended from Neandertals?

In fact, the only conclusion that is true and we must accept is that we can never know; and that telling apart extinct species is an entirely unknowable thing, if the only evidence are fossils and bones.

That's a little excessive. There is no difficulty in determining that fossil Neandertals and fossil mammoths are different species, right? And there's no difficulty in determining that fossil Neandertals are different from fossil modern humans, whether or not they're the same species. And there's no difficulty in determining that hominin species are increasingly different from modern humans as you go back in time. The precise species boundaries and genealogical relationships are difficult to reconstruct, sure, but that doesn't make the basic evolutionary account any less plain, or a creationist alternative any more plausible.

So who or what are the Neanderthals?

A creationist-inspired hypothesis is that these are the antediluvian descendants of the sons Adam, other than Noah and his sons, all destroyed during the Flood.

Well, that's consistent with this particular set of evidence, as long as you agree that Adam lived at least half a million years ago. Oh, and that Noah's family had several thousand members.

 

[mark kennedy]

Paleontology is obviously handicapped to only morphology to make species classification. And we know that dogs, from St Bernands to Chihuahua, and even coyotes and wolves, can interbreed and are all of one species. So Neanderthals, from some little but obvious skeletal differences - despite a great degree of similarity - have been classified as a different species, apart from homo sapiens.

But there have been recent DNA evidence that Neanderthals and Homo Sapiens interbred, and thus of the same species.

If Homo sapiens and Neanderthals could interbred then they were both human. The DNA evidence is actually pretty impressive, I was skeptical that scientists could actually come up with something coherent based on fossilized DNA. Apparently they can!

In other words we have to be always skeptical when some so-called scientist tell us, from some bone or partial skeleton, that some extinct constructed or imagined dinosaur is this species and that another; and we can be totally dismissive if this so-called scientist even attempt to say that one evolve from the other. (How would you feel if someone tells you the St Bernand evolve from the Chihuahua?)

There is one important difference, St. Bernards and Chihuahuas are alive today.

In fact, the only conclusion that is true and we must accept is that we can never know; and that telling apart extinct species is an entirely unknowable thing, if the only evidence are fossils and bones.

That's true enough, the fossils can be used to make comparisons to living species. There is a lot of speculation that people will indulge themselves in but I don't dismiss fossils.

So who or what are the Neanderthals?

A variety of humans, I really don't even regard them as primitive.

A creationist-inspired hypothesis is that these are the antediluvian descendants of the sons Adam, other than Noah and his sons, all destroyed during the Flood.

Perhaps, they may have been early descendents of the son's of Noah but it's hard to say.

And then it is not surprising that present day humans carry some of the Neanderthals genes, for Noah and his son's wives were descendants from the other sons of Adam too. The bible didnt tell us anything about these wives and so we cannot name the father the Neanderthals. Perhaps one day science may establish that H. Sapiens and Neanderthals share a common mother.

I think the Bible is clear that their common mother was Eve.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[LanceCohen]

Automatic rejection of scientific claims because they disagree with your theology is not.

I reject any and all "scientific claims" if they are not scientific, and not for any theology, which is entirely irrelevant.

Hypothesis making can draw its inspiration from any sources if you are truly open minded and genuinely truth seeking. But science is science, namely observable, testable (and repeatedly too), predictive, and always tentative among other things.

But if you insist paleontology is science than we are probably speaking in different languages. At best I grant paleontology is evidence-based and rational, a necessary but not sufficient condition to be science, even as rational and consistent explanations amount to no more than that.

Do you dismiss scientific claims that both St. Bernards and chihuahuas evolved from wolves?

I'll say, show me the science, and don't just make claims and give nice explanations. And if you claim this dead bone evolve from another dead bone, I'll ask how do you do science on dead bones, particularly, to answer the question, how do you tell the animals to which the bones belong cannot interbreed?

as long as you agree that Adam lived at least half a million years ago.

I can agree if you can tell me whether a second today is the same as a second "half a million years" ago. Einstein's theory of relativity says time is relative, namely to our frame of motion. Can you say that this frame of motion have always been the same "half a million years" ago? And then there are other possible notions of time too.

And BTW I think science is not any poorer if we just dump the theory of evolution with all its man-made classification of living and dead things into "species" and so on - it is just a convenience for naturalists; eg does it matter at all, for knowledge and for practical applications, whether St Bernands "evolve" from wolves, or from Chihuahuas, or have been St Bernands all the time from the "beginning"? As I have rhetorically asked elsewhere, what practical benefits have we today that will disappear if the theory of evolution is false. I cant seem to think of any, but perhaps you can tell me something I dont know here.

And as far I can see, the only reason evolution is clinging on as science, is that it displaces the need for the notion of a creator God to account for the bewildering myriad and diversity of life on earth, which God have made precisely so that we have no excuse for saying we do not know there is God [Rom 1:20]. Evolution, and in general Science, on the other hand, as the new god of mankind, is far more acceptable to man, as it is man-made.

 

[LanceCohen]

Perhaps, they may have been early descendents of the son's of Noah but it's hard to say.

That is possible, and also that Neanderthals may still be among us today.

I think the Bible is clear that their common mother was Eve.

Sure, but it may be hard for science to arrive at this.

 

[sfs]

I reject any and all "scientific claims" if they are not scientific, and not for any theology, which is entirely irrelevant.

Hypothesis making can draw its inspiration from any sources if you are truly open minded and genuinely truth seeking. But science is science, namely observable, testable (and repeatedly too), predictive, and always tentative among other things.

That all sounds good to me, as long as you understand what the "repeatable" part really means. You don't have to repeat a supernova in order to scientifically study one when it occurs.

But if you insist paleontology is science than we are probably speaking in different languages. At best I grant paleontology is evidence-based and rational, a necessary but not sufficient condition to be science, even as rational and consistent explanations amount to no more than that.

Well, the language I'm speaking is standard American English, and in that language paleontology is a science. Often an imprecise one, to be sure, but undoubtedly a science. I don't know what language you're speaking, but it's not the one that scientists use.

I'll say, show me the science, and don't just make claims and give nice explanations.

Here is some of the science, and here and here and here.

And if you claim this dead bone evolve from another dead bone, I'll ask how do you do science on dead bones, particularly, to answer the question, how do you tell the animals to which the bones belong cannot interbreed?

Scientists seldom say that a particular bone evolved from another particular bone (or that the one species evolved from the other), precisely because it's too difficult to be sure. One can quite confidently conclude, based on what we know about biology overall, that a T. rex could not interbreed with a fish, say, or with a frog. With almost as much confidence, we can conclude that T. Rex couldn't interbreed with a stegasaurus, since that large a morphological difference always implies different species among animals where we can test interbreeding. Whether two kinds of fossil that differ only slightly, Neandertals and modern humans, could interbreed is much more speculative.

How do you do science on dead bones? Lots of ways. You compare their size and shape with other bones. You determine their age from the strata they're lying in. You examine the marks on them. You measure their isotope composition. You take samples of them and sequence their DNA, as with the Neandertal bones.

I can agree if you can tell me whether a second today is the same as a second "half a million years" ago.

Good, then you can safely agree. A second today is indeed the same as a second half a million years ago. A second is defined as the time it takes for a cesium-133 atom to complete 9192631770 oscillations. We have abundant evidence that atomic physics has not changed much in the last half million years.

Einstein's theory of relativity says time is relative, namely to our frame of motion. Can you say that this frame of motion have always been the same "half a million years" ago?

We only have to worry about the elapsed proper time of our ancestors, that is, the elapsed time in their own frame of reference. Relativity is irrelevant here.

You might also note that my comment about half a million years had nothing to do with fossils. Adam would have had to be that long ago (in your explanation for Neandertals) to explain the genetic differences between them and us.

And then there are other possible notions of time too.

I very much doubt that any of them are relevant here.

And BTW I think science is not any poorer if we just dump the theory of evolution with all its man-made classification of living and dead things into "species" and so on - it is just a convenience for naturalists; eg does it matter at all, for knowledge and for practical applications, whether St Bernands "evolve" from wolves, or from Chihuahuas, or have been St Bernands all the time from the "beginning"? As I have rhetorically asked elsewhere, what practical benefits have we today that will disappear if the theory of evolution is false. I cant seem to think of any, but perhaps you can tell me something I dont know here.

If we dumped evolution, we would immediately lose almost all of our understanding of the genome -- what is in it, why it is there, how the different parts relate, how it changes over time, why we see the patterns we do when we compare genomes. We lose all of understanding of why species are distributed the way they are -- why there are so many species of fruit fly and honeycreeper in Hawaii, why the Wallace line exists, and so on. Most of this isn't of "practical benefit", just of scientific interest, since most of science isn't intended to be of practical benefit. We could, after all, throw away all of astronomy without losing any practical benefits, but that doesn't mean astronomy is invalid or that the stars aren't really out there.

Nonetheless, there would be practical losses if we dumped evolution. We would lose a powerful tool for identifying functional elements in the genome, for measuring mutation rates, for identifying parts of the genome that have been changing recently and that are therefore more likely to be causing disease. We would be unable to understand where antibiotic resistance comes from, or how to limit its spread and appearance.

And as far I can see, the only reason evolution is clinging on as science, is that it displaces the need for the notion of a creator God to account for the bewildering myriad and diversity of life on earth, which God have made precisely so that we have no excuse for saying we do not know there is God [Rom 1:20]. Evolution, and in general Science, on the other hand, as the new god of mankind, is far more acceptable to man, as it is man-made.

Well, you're wrong. Evolution "clings on" as science because it works. Some scientists believe in God, some don't, but we all do the same science, and a highly effective part of that science is evolution. If creationists want to displace it from science, all they have to do is come up with a model that makes better predictions. You wouldn't think that would be hard to do, if creationism were really true, but they have been utterly unable to do so.

 

[Ishraqiyun]

I reject any and all "scientific claims" if they are not scientific, and not for any theology, which is entirely irrelevant.

Do you automatically know that a claim is unscientific if it doesn't agree with your understanding of the book of Genesis though? Do you then go on to find evidence to prove that it isn't scientific?

 

[LanceCohen]

... some of the science

From one of those links:

Mitochondrial DNA control region sequences were analyzed from 162 wolves at 27 localities worldwide and from 140 domestic dogs representing 67 breeds. Sequences from both dogs and wolves showed considerable diversity and supported the hypothesis [emphasis mine] that wolves were the ancestors of dogs. Most dog sequences belonged to a divergent monophyletic clade sharing no sequences with wolves. The sequence divergence within this clade suggested that dogs originated more than 100,000 years before the present. Associations of dog haplotypes with other wolf lineages indicated episodes of admixture between wolves and dogs. Repeated genetic exchange between dog and wolf populations may have been an important source of variation for artificial selection.

I have no problem with hypothesis.

The fact is that we know the genetic sequences of dogs and wolves and these showed similarities and differences. I suppose there are some more theories and hypotheses to tell what part of the sequence is newer or older and therefore which have existed longer. And even if I accept these theories are true, prima facie, I do not see how we can conclude that the older is an "ancestor" of the newer.

And as to species distribution, how is it a not merely a "scientifically" - in your language - acceptable explanation that, for example, the bird of paradise only happened in New Guinea because of natural selection, for who was there to see some old world species of bird change into a bird of paradise? Of course, no one was around, and lived long enough, to make such observations, so how then can we conclude it was indeed evolution that was the reason? But if, to you, such acceptable explanations sufficed for understanding, then so be it.

And from another link:

Our results do not support ... a close association of the Xoloitzcuintli with other hairless breeds of dogs. Despite their phenotypic uniformity, the Xoloitzcuintli has a surprisingly high level of mtDNA sequence variation.

So large morphological difference may indicate different species, but does morphological uniformity automatically means same species? I think there ought to be some examples.

We only have to worry about the elapsed proper time of our ancestors, that is, the elapsed time in their own frame of reference. Relativity is irrelevant here.

And you know the time frame of reference of "our ancestors"?

Relativity may be irrelevant to you, here on earth, but not so for an observer out there in the Universe observing earth.

And what do you mean when you say "evolution works"?

 

[LanceCohen]

Do you automatically know that a claim is unscientific if it doesn't agree with your understanding of the book of Genesis though?

No I dont. There is always and have been room for continual growth of understanding of the book of Genesis.

Do you then go on to find evidence to prove that it isn't scientific?

Yes I do, or I at the least hold an open position, until I know enough facts to conclude one way or another.

 

[sfs]

I have no problem with hypothesis.

Go back and look at that sentence again, and note what it ways: the evidence "supported the hypothesis". Scientists form hypotheses, and then test them looking at more evidence. That's how you distinguish the false from the possibly true.

The fact is that we know the genetic sequences of dogs and wolves and these showed similarities and differences. I suppose there are some theories and hypotheses to tell what part of the sequence is newer or older and therefore which have existed longer. And even if I accept these theories are true, prima facie, I do not see how we can conclude that the older is an "ancestor" of the newer.

You're welcome to offer an alternative hypothesis that would explain the data. Dog chromosomes look exactly like they are a subset drawn from a larger pool of wolf chromosomes, with a fair bit of mutation since then. Why else would that be, if dogs didn't evolve from the ancestors of today's wolves (with whom they can still interbreed, by the way).

And as to species distribution, how is it a not merely a "scientifically" - in your language - acceptable explanation that, for example, the bird of paradise only happened in New Guinea because of natural selection, for who was there to see some old world species of bird change into a bird of paradise? Of course, no one was around to make such observations, so how then can we conclude it was indeed evolution that was the reason?

I'm not sure I understand the first question. The process goes something like this: If common descent is true, then you are likely to find many species that are closely related (genetically and morphologically) to others on the same side of a major geographical barrier, and few that are closely related to species on the other side. When we look at a major geographical barrier like the deep water along the Wallace Line, we see exactly that distribution of species, so this provides support for the hypothesis that species are related by common descent. Fiat creation, on the other hand, makes no prediction at all about what you should see in such places, so it receives no support.

Similarly, when we look at a relatively young and isolated piece of land like Hawaii (which the geologists tell us in only a few million years old), if common descent is true, we can form all sorts of expectations . We should find few or no animals there whose ancestors couldn't have flown to the islands. We should find only a few clusters of species, evolved from the few individuals who managed to get there. The species within those clusters should be closely related. And those are exactly the kind of things we do find: no native mammals, for example, except for a species of bat, few major groups of birds or insects, but with many closely related species within each group. Examples of the latter phenomenon include the honeycreepers and fruit flies that I mentioned. The many species of honeycreeper on Hawaii are all finches and are all closely related genetically, even though they show a great variety of forms and lifestyles (see some of them here).

Now one can of course suppose that a fiat creator simply chose to populate the Hawaiian Islands with a bunch of very different-looking but genetically similar finch species, and did the same with fruit flies and other animals, and that it's simply a giant coincidence that the species distribution looks exactly like what we would expect under common descent. But why would the creator so consistently make choices that look so much like evolution? Why not put some monkey species on Hawaii, and full range of birds?

And what do you mean when you say "evolution works"?

I mean what I've been talking about above: evolution lets us predict what we're going to see when we look at new data, explains existing data, and provides a basis for asking new and fruitful ways of looking for data. Creationism can "explain" many things, but it predicts little and provides no clues about where to look in the future. It is scientifically barren. (It doesn't help that what few predictions it does make tend to be wrong.)

 

[philadiddle]

Paleontology is obviously handicapped to only morphology to make species classification.

Well not quite. Paleontology also has biogeography (the distribution of species) as well as time (the age of species). These are important factors as well.

 

[Standing_Ultraviolet]

An ability to interbreed doesn't necessarily prove that two organisms are the same species, if the two species are close enough to each other genetically. Consider horses and donkeys, for instance. They can breed together, producing a mule, as can horses and zebras (although the offspring obviously isn't a mule in that case). The offspring is often sterile when this happens, but not always. Some (if not most) Young Earth Creationist biologists accept Neanderthals as a separate species from modern human beings, although they still accept them as being human in the Biblical sense (ie., possessing the image of God). Some Old Earth Creationists don't accept them as Biblically human. I'm not sure how they justify that but I'll just accept that it's not worth a needless debate.

Also, dogs are a special case. Arguing that dogs evolved from wolves is kind of strange since dogs are wolves. They're a subspecies of the gray wolf. They can breed freely with wolves and have fertile offspring, the same way as when two wolves breed.

 

[LanceCohen]

... the evidence "supported the hypothesis".

I say again, I have no problem with hypothesis, supported or otherwise.

Scientists form hypotheses, and then test them looking at more evidence. That's how you distinguish the false from the possibly true.

Again I have no problem. For that is science: possibly true, always tentative.

But the fact can be another matter altogether, and I am sure you have heard of Popper.

You're welcome to offer an alternative hypothesis that would explain the data.

But why the need to explain the data at all?

More intriguing to me is why do humans need to explain such data, or even that there are wolves and there are dogs to be explained? I have alluded to this reason earlier.

But I also think there is a "positive" reason for such need. Somewhere else I have drawn the parallel with the "need" to put in order chemical substances in the early history of chemistry - even as far back as the Greeks (remember earth, fire, water and air?). The outcome was the periodic table and eventually nuclear physics and quantum theory and the atomic bomb. I think there could be a biological equivalent of quantum theory and the A bomb (and it is not natural selection), but to do that we need to get away from thinking elements are just earth, water, fire and air, metaphorically speaking.

Of course without such intense and constant debate about evolution we could not have got the funding to do the genetic sequencing of dogs and wolves in the first place. That is some kind of positive too - for any data and any fact is good - but in a backhanded way.

If common descent is true ...

Yes, yes I am aware of such reasoning: if it rains I carry an umbrella. So you see me carry an umbrella, can you conclude it is raining?

You can only falsify a hypothesis; no amount of supporting evidences can make a hypothesis true. And probability is also irrelevant, for an improbable event can happen, eg an asteroid strike on earth.

... evolution lets us predict what we're going to see when we look at new data, explains existing data, and provides a basis for asking new and fruitful ways of looking for data ...

It is still unsatisfactory to me, as compare to the hard sciences that put man on the moon, invented new material like graphene, created disease resistant crops, cloned Dolly the sheep, etc (and for the latter two examples I do not think I need any notion of evolution to do that: knowledge of DNA and hereditary are better and more adequate sciences already); and also it does not mean I find any form of Creationism scientific either. I just think there is room for better science, and we need firstly to get our language right, eg dogs may have descended from wolves, but no one knows for a fact.

And of a Christian scientist, including biologist studying life, he should take as a foundational premise, even as others take other presuppositions as self evident, the following:

For ever since the creation of the world His invisible nature and attributes, that is, His eternal power and divinity, have been made intelligible and clearly discernible in and through the things that have been made (His handiworks). [Rom 1:20 (Amplified Bible)]

In other words the objective in studying life, and of the world in general, could be to see and reveal what God's "eternal power" and "divinity" really is, and we can have faith that it can be revealed, for it is already "intelligible" and "clearly discernible". Again the example of atomic physics, atomic power, black holes, etc have in some ways show what such power is, and how unimaginable and awesome reality really is, etc. I am sure living things have yet to show us more of God's invisible nature and attributes, and it is not just in classifying these things. And certainly it is not to explain away the need for a Creator God.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

Neanderthals may still be among us today.

Yes, and they waste all their time defending creationism.

 

[sfs]

I say again, I have no problem with hypothesis, supported or otherwise.

But when hypotheses become well enough supported, it becomes perverse to pretend that there's any realistic chance that they'll turn out to be false. Atoms are still just a well-supported hypothesis, and the idea that Plasmodium falciparum causes malaria is just a hypothesis, but you have to be nuts not to treat them as facts.

But the fact can be another matter altogether, and I am sure you have heard of Popper.

I've heard of him, and have a very low opinion of his views. He solved neither the problem of induction nor the demarcation problem, and he is not viewed as having much to contribute to the philosophy of science.

But why the need to explain the data at all?

Because that's what scientists do, is explain data. And if you're even the least bit curious, why wouldn't you want to understand why there are so many species, why they seem so well fitted to their environments, and why they show such varied patterns of similarities and differences?

But I also think there is a "positive" reason for such need. Somewhere else I have drawn the parallel with the "need" to put in order chemical substances in the early history of chemistry - even as far back as the Greeks (remember earth, fire, water and air?). The outcome was the periodic table and eventually nuclear physics and quantum theory and the atomic bomb. I think there could be a biological equivalent of quantum theory and the A bomb (and it is not natural selection),

Stop right there. Biologists -- who are the ones in the position to know, after all -- think that evolution is very much the biological equivalent of quantum mechanics: it's is the overarching theory in which much of the rest of biology makes sense.

but to do that we need to get away from thinking elements are just earth, water, fire and air, metaphorically speaking.

We already did, sometime in the 19th century.

Of course without such intense and constant debate about evolution we could not have got the funding to do the genetic sequencing of dogs and wolves in the first place. That is some kind of positive too - for any data and any fact is good - but in a backhanded way.

We didn't sequence the dog genome to study evolution. We sequenced the dog genome to understand dog biology better, and to find which genes confer risk to a wide range of diseases, and which alleles lead to which traits in dogs. You might note that there is intense and constant debate within biology about some details of evolution, but zero debate about whether evolution has occurred or is the main explanation for life's diversity -- not because such debate is frowned upon, but because evolution is so well established and so useful that there's nothing to debate.

Yes, yes I am aware of such reasoning: if it rains I carry an umbrella. So you see me carry an umbrella, can you conclude it is raining?

Sorry, I don't see the point in dealing with analogies. Common descent makes an enormous numbers of quite specific predictions, predictions that are routinely borne out in data. Why do you think that is?

It is still unsatisfactory to me, as compare to the hard sciences that put man on the moon, invented new material like graphene, created disease resistant crops, cloned Dolly the sheep, etc (and for the latter two examples I do not think I need any notion of evolution to do that: knowledge of DNA and hereditary are better and more adequate sciences already);

Hard scientist disagree with you. They agree with the biologists: evolutionary biology is a core science, and a highly successful one. I often marvel at how confident non-scientists are that they understand science better than scientists.

I am sure living things have yet to show us more of God's invisible nature and attributes, and it is not just in classifying these things. And certainly it is not to explain away the need for a Creator God.

I've known a lot of biologists, and a lot of them studying evolution, and I've yet to meet one who displayed any interest in explaining away the need for a creator God. Christians who study evolution certainly aren't trying to do that.

 

[LanceCohen]

To sfs, I'll make a few points.

1. Fundamental Unknowability.

Whatever you may say - "perverse", "pretend", "unrealistic" - and, whatever your opinion may be about Popper - or even any 12 year old who understands simple logical fallacy - they all don't matter. The fact that truly matters is that there are limits to what we can ever know. And if I want to press it philosophically, we cannot even know what is cause and what is effect, if at all the two events are related as causal.

But even if it is granted you, that to assume otherwise is "pretense" or being "unrealistic", and accept prima facie, the "reality" and "self-evidence" of causal relationship, it is one thing to observe both cause and effect, and entirely another to only observe the effects - albeit a few times - and to conclude the existence of a cause.

2. Science.

In the truth of fundamental unknowability, what then science?

In physics such a notion is accepted and incorporated into its very science itself, eg Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle in Quantum Mechanics. I don't think biology have admitted it has any fundamental limits to knowing.

And also there is, or ought to be, a different attitude to science, for those who are given the gift of knowledge of the revelation of God, ie Christians who know God and his mind, ought to see and do science differently from those who labor under the limits of human knowledge.

For the former science is the bottom up view of the world, knowledge coming mainly from induction, and always tentative, never certain, and revelation is the high view from which deduction or general principles can be made. Of course not all of revelation is of science but, as I quoted earlier, it is already revealed that nature is so designed that our natural mind can discern such a design which in turn reveals God, eg that the Neanderthal genes is present in the human gene pool today.

3. Life.

Life is affected and changed by its environment, but unlike non living things can and do respond to its environment, which in turn may modify the manner in which the environment affects it.

And biological science have indeed made some significant progress in the understanding of life, and to me the most significant is DNA, genetic and hereditary science.

They have revealed that the environment causes the genes to change, ie mutation, genetic flow, genetic drift, and how at the entity and population levels such genetic changes is manifested, eg natural selection; and the latter is to me perhaps more accurately thought as sexual or reproductive selection, ie genotypes that lead to phenotypes with greater reproductive success will increase that genotype presence in the population. I have no problem with biological science as such. And if "evolution" is taken to mean just this, again I have no problem, albeit in the greater context of the fundamental limits and the objectives of science.

But "evolution" means something more - correct me if I am wrong here: it is the conjecture that natural selection is the mechanism in which living things change, make adaptations, and even to change to become another species altogether, over millions and millions of unobservable time spans.

It is too much a leap of faith, even to accept such as science, especially when fundamentally it is unnecessary for such a faith to do the science. Is there is a necessity to hold the precept that all living things originate from inanimate atoms and molecules, or all living things to come from some accidental self replicating microbe in order to understand and do biological science? Can I not do, for example, genetic science without subscribing to "evolution" but just to the mere idea that living things change?

Understanding changes, as we observe it, and the change mechanism, as hypothesized and tested, will be enough to do good and useful science. And if some of the changes accumulated over a long period of observation do indeed become a new "species", then so be it.

And finally, life is not merely physical. There is the spirit and the soul too. And these are outside the realms of science. If you know a part how can you ever know the whole?* And we have yet another fundamental unknowability in biology in its attempt to understand life.

(*And there is a parallel in cosmology when dark energy and dark matter may constitute more that 75% of all things in the universe!)

 

[Papias]

Just a quick fact check reminder:

Lance wrote:

and I am sure you have heard of Popper.

It's funny that the one quote that is often repeated in creationist books, and the only reason that creationists care to mention Popper, was also recanted by Popper himself quickly after it was made.

Quote: Karl Popper

He wrote:

"I have changed my mind about the testability and logical status of the theory of natural selection; and I am glad to have an opportunity to make a recantation. ...
The theory of natural selection may be so formulated that it is far from tautological." -Karl Popper
​

It's too bad that even after being corrected on this, many creationists pretend they didn't know that, and bring up Popper when they think the won't get caught again.

Papias

 

[LanceCohen]

I alluded to Popper not for his views on evolution but for his philosophy of science, which amongst many things said that science can only falsify itself and not prove itself, and that there are only two types of theories, namely false theories and yet to be falsified theories. I never knew what Popper thought of evolution, not that it matter anyway.

 

[sfs]

I wrote a long reply to Lance and it was eaten, and I'm not going to try to recreate it. Key points:

1) Biologists are perfectly well aware of the limitations of human knowledge, at least as much as physicists are. (Note: Heisenberg has nothing to do with problems of induction and human reasoning or the limitations of evidence. It's an aspect of anything described by a wave function.)

2) The way scientists deal with uncertainty is to distinguish degrees of certainty in their conclusions. Descent of all life from a small number of common ancestors is an extremely certain conclusion, about as certain as anything gets. The importance of natural selection in changing species and adapting them to their environment is less certain, although very, very likely.

3) You don't need to have any beliefs about the origin of life to do genetics. For much of genetics, however, you do have to accept common descent and (to a smaller degree) the role of natural selection, because they provide the only framework we have for understanding a lot of genetic data. Without them, the data are largely gibberish.

4) Revelation does not remove the uncertainty of human knowledge, since we can never know for certain that what we have is revelation or that we have understood it correctly. I have known people who were absolutely certain that God had told them something, only to conclude later that they'd been mistaken. We walk by faith, not by sight.

 

[LanceCohen]

Biologists are perfectly well aware of the limitations of human knowledge, at least as much as physicists are.

Good. (And it could be better if sometimes some biologist come up and say, "We cannot know this or that." But that may affect his funding, so perhaps such is unlikely.)

Heisenberg has nothing to do with problems of induction and human reasoning or the limitations of evidence. It's an aspect of anything described by a wave function.

That's true, but it is at least an attempt to deal with the nature of inherent unknowability.

The way scientists deal with uncertainty is to distinguish degrees of certainty in their conclusions.

Of course they do, but as I pointed out earlier, probability in all probability is irrelevant in truth.

Descent of all life from a small number of common ancestors is an extremely certain conclusion, about as certain as anything gets ...

As certain as the sun rising tomorrow?

You don't need to have any beliefs about the origin of life to do genetics. For much of genetics, however, you do have to accept common descent and (to a smaller degree) the role of natural selection ...

Descent from the previous generation, certainly, for that is common human experience and observation, but that all life descended from one accidental, or even a few, microbe eons and eons ago?

Revelation does not remove the uncertainty of human knowledge, since we can never know for certain that what we have is revelation or that we have understood it correctly. I have known people who were absolutely certain that God had told them something, only to conclude later that they'd been mistaken. We walk by faith, not by sight.

Of course revelation does not reveal all things.

But I disagree that we can never be certain about revelation: that a few persons are misled or to mislead, deliberately or otherwise, does not mean that everyone is such a fool. If there is only one person who can discern true revelation that is enough to prove the case. And of course we have such a One, in Person and in Spirit.

And faith is not about believing in that which is uncertain, no matter how probable, but on contrary, there can be no faith unless we are totally assured of the truth. [Heb 11].

I believe only that which is true. Of course there are those who believe anything they want to, feel good about, been falsely assured about, and so on, and thus we have false and true faiths, just as we have fools and the elect.

And certainly there is no need for faith in evolution, ie the notion of a common ancestor for all species, even to do science, much less to live and have life!